Democrats complain about the very Bonuses they were involved in allowing

[On_Your_Six]

Uh huh, he always does, doesn't he?

 

 

Miss those quotation marks there Qliver? I was being purposefully ironic, I hate Ted Turner as much as Rupert Murdoch.

 

I'm not arguing anything that you're arguing. I'm attempting to point out (to someone who has a great respect for [insult removed] Garfield) that this whole damned fiasco is because of your precious right wing cowboys.

 

And once again, Bush signed the bill, Dodd just tried to make it effective. There was no ****ing way that was happening.

[Q]

Miss those quotation marks there Qliver? I was being purposefully ironic, I hate Ted Turner as much as Rupert Murdoch.

I guess I did. Sorry. Irony's hard to read over the interwebs, but I get you now.

I'm not arguing anything that you're arguing. I'm attempting to point out (to someone who has a great respect for as dull and humorless a comic as Garfield) that this whole damned fiasco is because of your precious right wing cowboys.

 

And once again, Bush signed the bill, Dodd just tried to make it effective. There was no ****ing way that was happening.

They're not my precious right-wing cowboys. At this point I despise the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats.

[On_Your_Six]

No harm done, Qliver.

[GarfieldJL]

Back to topic, this Economic Mess and the AIG Bonuses can be almost entirely blamed on Democrats. This is based on the videos I found from C-SPAN and Fox News.

 

Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."

-- Real Clear Markets

 

 

All the way back in 2001, and the Republicans continued to try to fix this but the Dems used the fillabuster to block any regulations from getting through.

 

The Associated Press tried to cover this up and attempted to blame Bush for the mess that he was trying to fix, that the Democrats kept stonewalling on.

 

As much as I hate the New York Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

 

And they still try to slime President Bush in that article...

[On_Your_Six]

You know those cushions stunt men are supposed to fall onto from really high drops?

 

Well if you reverse that so the cushion is the one dropping onto the stunt guy, then you'll see that this is how your point works.

 

Now, bear in mind, I have no interest in either party, your two party system is flawed in and of the fact that it's an illusion of choice to a voter population who largely doesn't understand the bipartisan nature of the Senate, and therefore that it's the lobbyists waving corporate dollars who actually decide who rides and who flies in your country.

 

Bearing that in mind though, and keeping with my prior metaphor, there's absolutely no denying the fact that this: "Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets." is perhaps the weakest and desperate attempt at pinning culpability back on the Dem's.

 

You know, I would have agreed with you, had it not been for that other thing that happened in 2001 which has cost more money and lives than should possibly be feasible for a completely and utterly failed mission that has absolutely 0 hope of finding "victory" or, more poetically, I suppose, accomplishment.

 

Bottom line is that, you poor folks be it far left, or far right, are being easily distracted by decoy tactics (let's blame the illegal aliens, or lets do the gay marriage debate thing again, stem cell research ethics or etc etc etc), and eating it up like a horse to sugar cubes, and getting just as much worth out of your vote and tax dollars.

 

No matter how far or left you lean, if you're on the far side, you're closer to the wrong side, but please, don't try and make me or anyone else believe that the housing crisis precipitated this economic disaster and not the incredibly incompetent handling of the occupation of Iraq or the Joke on Terror.

[GarfieldJL]

Bush's budget came out before 9/11 if I remember correctly, also Bush brought up Freddie Mac again in 2003. McCain and a few other Republicans tried to get the situation fixed in 2005, 2006, & 2007.

 

This blame Bush for Iraq is bogus, you can blame Clinton for gutting the CIA for us going into Iraq. Though I will blame Bush for sticking with Rumsfeld and not getting someone actually competitent to manage the Iraq war.

[On_Your_Six]

This I will say, and I'll get back into it tomorrow.

 

Clinton, subpoenaed (and impeached) for having bad taste in a humidor.

 

Bush, subpoenaed, mysteriously all documents and correspondences pertaining to mismanaged funding for the "war" are missing or deleted (though I'm pretty sure that was a Cheney decision, that man is cold, makes a man he shot in the face apologise to Cheney for being in the way [not really] of the gunshot? That's ice).

[GarfieldJL]

This I will say, and I'll get back into it tomorrow.

 

Clinton, subpoenaed (and impeached) for having bad taste in a humidor.

 

Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath before a Federal Grand Jury, after not being able to keep his pants up.

 

Bush, subpoenaed, mysteriously all documents and correspondences pertaining to mismanaged funding for the "war" are missing or deleted (though I'm pretty sure that was a Cheney decision, that man is cold, makes a man he shot in the face apologise to Cheney for being in the way [not really] of the gunshot? That's ice).

 

I'll agree that was probably Cheney, not President Bush. Quite frankly, Bush should have begged for McCain to forgive him in 2000 and gotten McCain as his Vice President, we wouldn't have had nearly as many problems with McCain as VP.

 

Not being serious:

 

I think one of the reasons McCain chose Palin is because she could actually aim a firearm and not shoot the wrong person in the face.

[Darth Avlectus]

Yeah, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack....with Lehman Bros., Behr Sterns, Citibank (yuck), and last but not least AIG...

 

Why would you lend to people who in your estimation would not and could not pay it back? ...you wouldn't.

 

What were the salaries and bonuses Franklin Rains (now in office) got? $565,000/yr with a 1.2 million bonus? Coincidentally he's been cleared of any wrongdoing during his time in Freddie Mac.

 

I seem to also remember circa 2000-2002 Rahm Emanuel's name coming up in association with Fannie Mae quite a bit. Yet he's coincidentally innocent as well...

 

Tim Geithner's name had casually come up whenever the entertaining circus that is msnbc would speak of AIG, Lehman Bros., and Behr Sterns. .......Oh, but he's innocent too.

 

Is it just me or is there some kind of pattern here?

 

Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired.

 

Have *you* investigated it personally?

 

Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too. However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco.

 

BofA...ahh, no wonder I'm having to deal with such BS lately... I'm talking infuriating runarounds over the phone as to why it took them 12 days to process my last payment when I paid it *at one of their banking centers IN PERSON* and that payment STILL wound up late.

 

So... Fox<brevity> prints an article, veinly attempting to spin this latest in bailouts as a problem that began and solely is, because of the Democrats (forgetting that the Senate works as a bipartisan entity, so naturally the people of America aren't getting constitutional representation anyways), and not because of the Republicans and what they had been doing for the last 8 years, the United States being screwed within the first 4 of those years?

 

Hilarious.

What's even more hilarious is that the current administration is on a spending spree soon to rival that of the last 8 years. All this bailout and stimulus. Looks like it ain't gonna be nearly enough to stop what is coming either...

 

So, I'd agree both parties are to blame: One for corporate irresponsibly running amok, the other for pretty much blocking any common sense in loaning.

 

The war? I'd also say Rumsfeld was incompetent, following secondarily to primarily that I'm going more from the strategic point of view from vets I know personally. I'm not really happy how things were carried out.

 

Uhh, yeah. Say, what was Barney Frank doing before his current position? Something about making policies for banks.

 

I will say though that I have had my frustrations with the 2 party system because I also think it is an illusion. We have electoral votes as sourcing "arbitrary" votes, and the senate for expediency. So it never really has been in the hands of the people, has it?

 

Let's also forget that the last Democratic party in power changed what was (at the time) the largest deficit the United States had ever faced (ushered in by Reagan and moreso by Daddy Bush) into an actual surplus (yes the Bush Jr Administration was faced with a surplus and squandered that within three years).

Ah the 'surplus' clinton left us with. Gotta love how he sat on his hands while the senate (which you mentioned above as being bipartisan and big $$$) turned the Social Security fund and rolled it over into the general fund.

That was a pretty nice "surplus".

Fast Forward to last November when Bush was already approving (MUCH) larger bailout figures than what AIG got,

Which both candidates also approved, BTW.

and the fact that at this point (nevermind last year when he was approving 360 Billion dollar War *ahem* plans) that he doesn't care that the country is trillions in debt, the fact of the matter is that Obama inherited that.

Never mind inheriting all that, he's still spending money, too.

I don't care what you say, but this fiasco is a joke compared to the actual fiascoes that have been going on, hopefully this will lead to a reflection on accountability when it comes to divesting bail out plans to such corporations, but, never forget, the American political system is bilateral and bipartisan, all the Fed's are doing now is paying back a -tiny- bit of money that all those corporations have been lobbying your righteous senators with for years.

 

Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace.

As if they're the only ones...Like killing them for their opinions will end conflict elsewhere in the world.

But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

 

From money.cnn.com

But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it.

 

From money.cnn.com

 

QFE

You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

BTW Didn't Clinton deregulate the banks before the end of his second term?

Something about putting harsh strict loan policy aside for helping out the poor?

 

Though I won't deny r.i.n.o. Bushie-boy sure did us harm by doing nothing about it and just sitting on his hands quietly the whole 8 years.

 

I guess like a prematurely fire-lit bag of dog ****, common sense has been thrown out the window.

[mur'phon]

Why would you lend to people who in your estimation would not and could not pay it back? ...you wouldn't.

 

Unless you either A: was going to sell of that loan later so it wouldn't be your problem or B: gambeled on the fact that with house prices rocketing, they could always get their money back by selling the house.

 

Have *you* investigated it personally?

 

No, but separating good ones from bad ones is hellish, especially after a game changing event. In adition, in this downturn you'd actually want risk taking free lending bosses to kickstart the economy.

 

What's even more hilarious is that the current administration is on a spending spree soon to rival that of the last 8 years. All this bailout and stimulus. Looks like it ain't gonna be nearly enough to stop what is coming either...

 

Well, at least the current administration have got the timing right, big defecits during downturns are fine, racking them up while the economy is on top is bordering criminal.